Smoking Bans

**cmoneyr** · 11-04-2007, 06:37 PM

This is the thread that doesn't end, yes it goes on and on my friends. Some people, started posting, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting 'till forever just because...

**alaskaguy** · 11-05-2007, 04:10 PM

I was talking about this topic with co-workers and they brought up a new angle. Currently businesses can restrict their hiring to non-smoking employees. Therefore, shouldn't businesses have the right to only hire smokers? The smoker only companies then could market themselves as some type of smoking haven where only customers who smoke are allowed?

**dmclone** · 11-05-2007, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

This thread goes on and on.

Responses to the argument you have made have been provided. Nevertheless, I'll recap the responses....

Someone drinking in a restaurant does not harm me. The same can't be said for smoking.
[/COLOR]

I promise you that I've been harmed more from drunks in my life than second hand smoke and I'll make you another promise that the chances of me dying from being hit by a drunk driver are a lot more than 2nd hand smoke.

**cyclonenum1** · 11-06-2007, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

I agree that it is a person's right to smoke, but we must recognize that smoking is an activity that affects others, whether by spraying smoke into their faces or by, arguably, the effects of second hand smoke.

The government exists to protect citizens' rights and the right to be seated in a restaurant or public place without smoke being blown into my face is one worth protecting by the government. Actions that inherently negatively affect the people who are around when they are performed - such as smoking - need to be regulated by the government.

Before anyone starts off again arguing from the civil liberties perspective, realize that your rights are limited. You do not have the right to assault me nor do you have the right to blow smoke into my or anyones face. Infringing on others' rights is not your right, or my right, or anyone else's right.

Two points:

1) The owner of the establishment should be allowed to decide on whether smoking is allowed or not allowed in his/her business...not the government.

2) Have you ever had a smoker "blow smoke into your face"...I find this statement to be a little "over the top".

**alaskaguy** · 11-06-2007, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

Two points:

1) The owner of the establishment should be allowed to decide on whether smoking is allowed or not allowed in his/her business...not the government.

2) Have you ever had a smoker "blow smoke into your face"...I find this statement to be a little "over the top".

Cyclone #1 just because you are the owner of a restaurant do you believe that makes you exempt from federal laws, especially those laws that protect the public health?

And yes I have had smoke blown into my face. I was at Circus Circus casinao watching the Circus. A mother with a small child requested that an individual not smoke. His response was to put out his cigarette and to light another and take heavy drags and exhale. I requested that he not ignore the mothers request and then he reacted by exhaling into our faces.

**Steve** · 11-06-2007, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

Two points:

1) The owner of the establishment should be allowed to decide on whether smoking is allowed or not allowed in his/her business...not the government.

Like it or not, owning a business does not give one the right to set policies that adversely affect the general public. We have a government, of the people, by the people, that has been filling this role for over 200 years. The public demand is such that the only question is when, not if, our society places additional restrictions on smoking.

It wasn't that long ago that one was forced to share a hospital room, row on a plane, teacher's break room, theater, arena, stadium, conference room, etc with people who lit up with no concern for others around them. Most people would agree that these changes have been for the better. Being a property owner had nothing to do with these changes, nor will it have anything to do with future changes for the public good.

**Cyclone62** · 11-06-2007, 10:19 AM

people who lit up with no concern for others around them.

It wasn't that long ago that no one knew smoking was bad for your health, which was when these things were allowed there.

**cyclonenum1** · 11-06-2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by alaskaguy

Cyclone #1 just because you are the owner of a restaurant do you believe that makes you exempt from federal laws, especially those laws that protect the public health?

And yes I have had smoke blown into my face. I was at Circus Circus casinao watching the Circus. A mother with a small child requested that an individual not smoke. His response was to put out his cigarette and to light another and take heavy drags and exhale. I requested that he not ignore the mothers request and then he reacted by exhaling into our faces.

No...however, to my knowledge, there is no federal law against smoking. The bottom line is that an establishment like a restaurant is a private business...it is owned by, gasp, the owner...not the government and no one is forced to patronize the establishment. If I am a non-smoker (which I am) and there is a restaurant that is neither smoke free nor has an adequate non-smoking area then I will simply not go to that restaurant. Likewise, I'm sure, if I was a smoker that I would avoid restaurants that did not allow smoking. It is really quite simple.

As for the guy that blew smoke into your face...what a *******. However, you seemed to have inserted yourself into a situation that really was none of your damn business unless this mother and small child were related to you. Why would you do this if you did not know these people? For the record, I would have dropped this guy's sorry *** had he blown smoke into my face.

**alaskaguy** · 11-06-2007, 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

No...however, to my knowledge, there is no federal law against smoking. The bottom line is that an establishment like a restaurant is a private business...it is owned by, gasp, the owner...not the government and no one is forced to patronize the establishment. If I am a non-smoker (which I am) and there is a restaurant that is neither smoke free nor has an adequate non-smoking area then I will simply not go to that restaurant. Likewise, I'm sure, if I was a smoker that I would avoid restaurants that did not allow smoking. It is really quite simple.

As for the guy that blew smoke into your face...what a *******. However, you seemed to have inserted yourself into a situation that really was none of your damn business unless this mother and small child were related to you. Why would you do this if you did not know these people? For the record, I would have dropped this guy's sorry *** had he blown smoke into my face.

Perhaps you are correct that I should not have intervened.

However I will admit that the smoker's attitude got to me. The mother had politely requested that he not smoke. His response was that it was his "right" to smoke and that he was not breaking any laws. Clearly in this case the smoker had no respect for either the mother or child. He seemed like a monster (my perception) since only his views mattered.

The end of the story is that the mother, child, and myself left our seats. We surrended our seats since it was clear that he was determined to smoke.